PROTECTION OF STREET ART (GRAFFITI) FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LATVIAN AUTHORS’ LAW
Keywords:street art, graffiti, street artist, authors’ law (copyright), vandalism (hooliganism)
AbstractStreet art (covering all street art types including graffiti) is considered as one of expressions of urban life and, simultaneously, one of peculiar intellectual creations. For years, street art was not recognised as a type of art and was usually subject to public condemnation, but street artists were (and still are) subject to liability arising from vandalism (hooliganism) acts. However, attitude against street art and its different expressions has been changing in recent years becoming recognised and valued as a specific type of modern art. This shift has been influenced by visual attractiveness of different creations of street art mainly murals containing graffiti; commencement of commercialisation of street art including sale of murals embodying graffiti at auctions; and court disputes over protection of street art expressions. Street art including graffiti may be subject to legal protection, yet it depends on a particular jurisdiction. The aim of the present article is to consider possibility of protection of street art in Latvia from the perspective of authors’ law (i.e. copyright) law. This paper discusses specific issues in relation to street art for its protection within Latvian authors’ law such as authorship as street artists usually create street art expressions anonymously; the concept of work by discussing compliance with criteria put forward to a work under authors’ law; integrity of a work as street art expressions such as graffiti are usually murals involving a clash between property law and authors’ law; distinction of street art from pure vandalism; and necessity for specific rules addressing specific nature of street art. The paper provides conclusions for identifying proper place of street art within legal framework of Latvian authors’ law.
Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., Johnson, P. (2014). Intellectual Property Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Available: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne (viewed 08.04.2018.)
Bloch, S. (2015). Book review on Alison Young, Street Art, Public City: Law, Crime and the Urban Imagination. Urban Studies, vol. 52, pp. 2500–2503.
Bonadio, E. (2018). Street art, graffiti and the moral right of integrity: Can artists oppose the destruction and removal of their works. Nuart Journal, vol. 1, pp. 17–22.
Bonadio, E. (2017). Copyright Protection of Street Art and Graffiti under UK Law. Intellectual Property Quarterly.
Copyright Law. Available: https://vvc.gov.lv/image/catalog/dokumenti/Copyright%20 Law.doc (viewed 08.04.2018.)
Elias, B. M., Gjahar, B. (2005). Street Art: The Everlasting Divide Between Graffiti Art and Intellectual Property Protection. Landslide, vol. 7. Available: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/1/v2/1125/ABALandslide-Ghajar-MayJune2015.pdf
Garner, B. A. (ed. in chief ) (2004). Black’s Law dictionary. 8th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Grudulis, M. (2006). Ievads autortiesībās. Rīga: Latvijas Vēstnesis. Judgement of Latgale Regional Court (appeal instance court) of 19 December 2014 in administrative offence case No 126011614. Available in Latvian: https://manas.tiesas.lv (viewed 08.04.2018.)
Krastiņš, U. (1998). Huligānisms. Grām.: Juridisko terminu vārdnīca. Autoru kolektīvs. Rīga: Nordik.
Latviešu konversācijas vārdnīca. Autoru kolektīvs. (1931). 6. sēj. Gončarovs – Hysteron. Rīga: A. Gulbja apgāds.
Lerman, C. (2013). Protecting Artistic Vandalism: Graffiti and Copyright Law. NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, vol. 2, pp. 295–337.
Mantrovs, V. (2017). Ielu māksla, grafiti un huligānisms (vandalisms). Jurista vārds, Nr. 32.
Rozenfelds, J. (2008). Intelektuālais īpašums. 2., labotais un papild. izd. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.
Smith, C.Y.N. (2013). Street Art: An Analysis under U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Intellectual Property’s Negative Space Theory. Depaul Journal of Art Technology & Intellectual Property, vol. 24, pp. 259–293
Tierney v. Moschino et al., No. 2:15-cv-05900-SVW (PJWx)(C.D. Cal. May 23, 2016).
Villa v. Pearson Education, Inc., No 03-C3717, 2003 WL 22922178, *2–3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2003).
WIPO, Contracting Parties, Berne Convention, Latvia. Available: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/remarks.jsp?cnty_id=980C (viewed 08.04.2018.)
Закон города Москвы от 17 мая 2018 года N 10 “О внесении изменения в статью 6
Закона города Москвы от 30 апреля 2014 года N 18 “О благоустройстве в городе Москве””. Available: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/557485011 (viewed 08.04.2019.)
Copyright (c) 2022 Culture Crossroads
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.